Duloxetine in Adults With ADHD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of duloxetine on ADHD in adults. METHOD: In a 6-week double-blind trial, 30 adults with ADHD received placebo or duloxetine 60 mg daily. The Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) and the Clinical Global Impression Scales (CGI) were used to assess symptom severity and clinical improvement. The Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) and the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) were used to measure the effect on anxiety and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: The Duloxetine group showed lower score on CGI-Severity at Week 6 (3.00 vs. 4.07 for placebo, p < .001), greater improvement on CGI-Improvement (2.89 vs. 4.00 at Week 6, p < .001), and greater decreases on five of eight subscales of the CAARS. There was no treatment group effect on HDRS or HARS scores. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine may be a therapeutic option for adults with ADHD, but further studies are required to replicate these findings in larger samples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".